Board asks president to resubmit report, defining metrics

At its June 19 meeting in Phoenix, the Unitarian Universalist Association’s Board of Trustees sent back a Monitoring Report by the UUA administration and asked the administration to describe the metrics it uses to measure its compliance with board policies.

“We treat monitoring as an opportunity for continuous improvement and learning,” said Donna Harrison, trustee of the Southwestern Unitarian Universalist Conference and convener of the board’s Governance Working Group. She explained that the working group had unanimously agreed that the administration’s Monitoring Report about Policy 2.14, which lays out requirements for the kinds of information the administration provides to the board, did not provide “operational definitions” and could not be evaluated meaningfully by the board.

The Rev. Jake Morrill, trustee from the Southeast District, described the working group’s reasons in a letter to the board. Quoting a management expert, he wrote, “an operational definition is a procedure agreed upon for translation of a concept into measurement of some kind.” The administration’s report, the working group concluded, didn’t identify clear metrics that could be used to evaluate its compliance with the board’s policy.

On the recommendation of the working group, the board asked the administration to resubmit its report by the end of August.

In other Policy Governance business, on June 20 the board delayed action on a proposal from the Audit Committee to change the schedule for Monitoring Reports. The Audit Committee had recommended shifting some reports from an annual cycle to every three years, but the board discussion revealed that trustees were unsure which policies need annual monitoring.

The board approved an amendment to Policy 2.13, which governs election practices. The new provision requires the administration to make sure that information distributed to the board also be distributed to candidates for president, moderator, and financial advisor.

The not-so-secret war between the Board and the President does not seem to have abated. Could it break out into he open at GA, or has the event been so carefully controlled and focused on social justice that it will be papered over. Might be some interesting body language when the Moderator and President are forced to share the stage.

Chris Walton

Patrick, I didn’t see that sort of tension in this particular decision.